Surley Straggler with 650b wheels coming soon!

[KLizotte]

@Phatboing 90794 wrote:

The Soma Saga is rather nice (26-in wheels in your size, yes, but nice).

For custom made titanium, I briefly looked at Habanero cycles – they have custom geometry for 1600-ish, which isn’t cheap, but isn’t Seven expensive, either.

Thanks, I hadn’t heard of Habanero before.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KLizotte]

Will check out Bruce Gordon too. I guess I need to decide on a wheel size first.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Phatboing]

@KLizotte 90816 wrote:

I guess I need to decide on a wheel size first.

It’s not as important as the bike fit, I’m sure. No wheel size is faster or more comfortable or more [insert adjective here] by default – between rims and spokes and hubs and tires and gears and bike and rider and planetary alignment, there are enough variables already that if you ensure that (a) your bike fits, and is comfortable (b) you like it, and (c) goes forward when you pedal, you’ll end up with an all-round agreeable package, even if it looks like this:

[vvill]

@Phatboing 90820 wrote:

No wheel size is faster or more comfortable or more [insert adjective here] by default.

As the owner of a folding bike with drop bars, I disagree. Smaller wheels just can’t soak up bumps as well. You can get bigger tires sure, but you’ll need bigger bigger tires. I also suspect the smaller wheels carry less rotating momentum (although they’re easier to spin up) so you don’t maintain speed as well downhill. And minivelos/folding bikes etc are known for their “twitchier” handling.

I’m sure the MTB industry disagrees too (although I haven’t ridden a 29er or 27.5 so I have no experience there).

[Phatboing]

@vvill 90824 wrote:

As the owner of a folding bike with drop bars, I disagree. Smaller wheels just can’t soak up bumps as well. You can get bigger tires sure, but you’ll need bigger bigger tires. I also suspect the smaller wheels carry less rotating momentum (although they’re easier to spin up) so you don’t maintain speed as well downhill. And minivelos/folding bikes etc are known for their “twitchier” handling.

I’m sure the MTB industry disagrees too (although I haven’t ridden a 29er or 27.5 so I have no experience there).

Fair point.

I can’t comment for bigger frame sizes, but speaking of bikes for compact humans, my 26er Troll is easier to throw around corners than my 29er Fargo (both small frames). The wheels are easier to spin up, and maybe that compensates for the lack of rotating momentum, maybe not.

What I’m getting at is that there are differences in wheel sizes, yes, but you shouldn’t let wheel size limit your bike choices, as long as the Thing As A Whole is satisfactory.

[KLizotte]

@Phatboing 90820 wrote:

It’s not as important as the bike fit, I’m sure. No wheel size is faster or more comfortable or more [insert adjective here] by default – between rims and spokes and hubs and tires and gears and bike and rider and planetary alignment, there are enough variables already that if you ensure that (a) your bike fits, and is comfortable (b) you like it, and (c) goes forward when you pedal, you’ll end up with an all-round agreeable package….

I was referring to the fact that frame designers start making compromises with the geometry on really small frames in order to get them to fit wheels that are essentially too big for the bike (this is most notable with 700c wheels) resulting in poor fit for most short people. Smaller wheels are supposed to help alleviate some of those problems. Depending on the frame, it appears I have a choice of 26, 27 and 650 wheels. At the end of the day, I hope to try out as many frames in person as I can since it is hard to tell from geometry charts which would would fit the best. The downside is few LBSs carry small bikes in stock for a trial ride. I think I may open up my own LBS and specialize in extra small and extra large bikes.

[vvill]

@Phatboing 90831 wrote:

Fair point.

I can’t comment for bigger frame sizes, but speaking of bikes for compact humans, my 26er Troll is easier to throw around corners than my 29er Fargo (both small frames). The wheels are easier to spin up, and maybe that compensates for the lack of rotating momentum, maybe not.

What I’m getting at is that there are differences in wheel sizes, yes, but you shouldn’t let wheel size limit your bike choices, as long as the Thing As A Whole is satisfactory.

On MTB/dirt/etc you usually have more surface friction and less momentum anyway so I think it’s no biggie. That’s why some still prefer 26 inch MTBs I’d guess. (I have no idea, I don’t MTB much at all.)

Agreed wheel size shouldn’t limit your bike choices, but there are still pros/cons to consider. I imagine 650b vs 700c isn’t going to affect handling/comfort too much – though 20″ wheels are a different story. One of the reasons I seem to commute less and less on my folding bike is that places like bridge joints and the Custis roots are always jarr-r-r-r-ring!

[vvill]

@KLizotte 90832 wrote:

I was referring to the fact that frame designers start making compromises with the geometry on really small frames in order to get them to fit wheels that are essentially too big for the bike (this is most notable with 700c wheels) resulting in poor fit for most short people. Smaller tires are supposed to help alleviate some of those problems. Depending on the frame, it appears I have a choice of 26, 27 and 650 wheels. At the end of the day, I hope to try out as many frames in person as I can since it is hard to tell from geometry charts which would would fit the best. The downside is few LBSs carry small bikes in stock for a trial ride. I think I may open up my own LBS and specialize in extra small and extra large bikes.

Yeah I always wonder what it’s like being 6 and a half feet tall on 700c wheels and a giant seatpost – does it feel like what a 26″ bike feels like to me?

Toe overlap and fork design/placement in general is definitely one thing that seems to get sacrificed on smaller frame designs.

[dcv]

@KLizotte 90732 wrote:

Whohoo! Surly is going to be coming out with its Straggler designed for 650 wheels (though it can also take 700 wheels); this is great news for those of us who are vertically challenged!

http://surlybikes.com/bikes/straggler_650b

The downside is lack of tire variety in the 650 size.

Mo’s in the same boat, Bikenetic carries Surly and Raleigh – Raleigh has the RX 1.0 Women’s with a 50cm TT, send dirt a PM.

[n18]

I am not sure how many road bikes out there with 26″ wheels and drop bars(A quick search at Performance Bike web site for road bikes shows none), but if you are avoiding 26″ wheels because they are slower, then you can compensate for it by changing gear ratio like others said. Changing gear ratio has a bigger speed advantage over switching between 700 and 26″ wheel. This page shows wheel circumference of most wheel types and tire sizes. You can use it to see how faster or slower a given wheel is compared to your current wheel. A 700cx35mm is 10% faster than a 26″x35mm wheel, for example.

If the smallest gear on the back has 14 teeth, and you switch to a gear cluster with 11 teeth, you could get a speed advantage of around 30%, that’s much higher than wheel or tire change.

This web page shows speed at different cadence levels and gear ratio, you can use it to compare different gear and wheel setups at 60 RPM cadence for example, and how it affects speed. Here is the same link, but with values loaded for Surly Straggler 650b. At 60 RPM cadence and the fastest gear setup(48×11), your speed would be 20.22 MPH. If the Straggler came with 14 teeth minimum, then your speed at 60 RPM would be 15.91 MPH, a 27% decrease in speed.

[KLizotte]

^^ Thanks so much for the info. Hadn’t even thought of how gear ratios affect performance and wasn’t aware that there were those kind of webpages out there.

[n18]

Check out SCOTT Contessa Solace line. It’s close to Straggler 650b geometry. Effective Top Tube length is 5 mm shorter, but standover height is 20 mm higher. I don’t know if it supports wider tires, or if it has mounting points for rack and fenders. Weight is between 15 and 18 lbs.

[KLizotte]

@n18 91275 wrote:

Check out SCOTT Contessa Solace line. It’s close to Straggler 650b geometry. Effective Top Tube length is 5 mm shorter, but standover height is 20 mm higher. I don’t know if it supports wider tires, or if it has mounting points for rack and fenders. Weight is between 15 and 18 lbs.

Thanks for the head’s up. Unfortunately, these appear to be pure skinny tire bikes. I’ll keep them in the back of my mind though should I decide to buy a fast wknd bike.

[vvill]

If anyone ever wants a singlespeed/FG in a smaller size, Wabi Cycles offer their “Classic” in a 42cm, with 650c wheels. Seat tube is 42cm, top tube 50cm.
http://www.wabicycles.com/classic_bike_spec_11.html

[KLizotte]

@vvill 91283 wrote:

If anyone ever wants a singlespeed/FG in a smaller size, Wabi Cycles offer their “Classic” in a 42cm, with 650c wheels. Seat tube is 42cm, top tube 50cm.
http://www.wabicycles.com/classic_bike_spec_11.html

Newbie question: I take it a frame like that can’t be built up as a regular geared bike (e.g., with 105 components)?

[Author]

Posts